Greetings, friends. My name is Jess McLean, and I'm here to provide you with some blueprints

of disruption. This weekly podcast is dedicated to amplifying the work of activists, examining

power structures, and sharing the success stories from the grassroots. Through these discussions,

we hope to provide folks with the tools and the inspiration they need to start to dismantle

capitalism, decolonize our spaces, and bring about the political revolution that we know

we need. My social media isn't always an echo chamber. I often get into it with people online

and last week was no different. Except this time a lot of the people in my replies were

people that I respect. We'd all just found out that Yves Engler had been denied in his bid

to become leader rejected by the NDP vetting committee. So of course Twitter was ablaze

and there was some serious discourse happening between comrades about vetting about the tactics

Yves' team used and whether or not he deserved to be in the race at all. It was clear we were

not all on the same page, which is fine. So Desmond Cole has come into the studio to see

where we differ and where we can find common ground. This isn't our usual format for a show,

but it is certainly Blueprint's content. We talk about how people approach power, the

different goals campaigns set, how the NDP uses vetting to silence people, and how the ways

we engage with each other on these topics matter. Just one note though, before we do start, since

we recorded this discussion, an email has been leaked that highlights one of the issues we

bring up, but don't explore quite enough. Lucy Watson, the NDP's national director,

has been caught again. using her position to influence the voice of membership and isolate

dissenters. In an email sent to individuals on federal council, Watson urges them to not

comment on Engler's rejection. And more relevant to this discussion, she frames their campaign

as one of outsiders. She others them. This framing of partisan protest campaigns as one

of outsiders who don't belong. who aren't legitimate voices to be heard is a mistake. I mean, it's

a calculated one taken by Watson, one she's used many, many times, but I'm afraid it's

one other people are stumbling into. Leadership campaigns are often lauded for bringing in

new people, right? That's one of the main goals of candidates, sign up new members. So the

issue really isn't that it's folks from outside the party participating, is it? It's about

a certain kind of people they don't want to Socialists and people who support Palestinian

resistance. This, of course, is a sound strategy for NDP brass who are committed to appealing

to liberal and con voters and staying as palatable as possible for capital. But it's not a winning

strategy for folks who consider themselves NDP reformists. These are the very folks you'll

need at your side if you want to push the party left and hold them accountable. Even if you

don't like the campaign or EAD, surely you can see the dangers of discrediting and demonizing

people for being outside these centers of power. Not to mention erasing the many long-time actual

members working on the campaign. This is how the worst authoritarians were and still are

able to divide people. I know it's a time of raised emotions. This leadership race has

folks feeling like there's a lot on the line and they're closing ranks a bit. But for now,

maybe let's broaden our perspectives. No matter where you sit on the party or its vetting

or eaves, try to receive this conversation with an open mind and let us know afterwards

If anything's changed for you, welcome back to the studio. Desmond, can you introduce

yourself to people, please? Hi, um my name is Desmond Cole. I'm a journalist and author

based in Toronto. um I work full time now for The Breach as their senior journalist. And.

uh I have been following the NDP federal leadership race. We all have you been following it at

all, Jess? No, no. I mean, I had discussion with comrades earlier and we were fully ready

to unpack the race, but all admittedly wishing we weren't we weren't caught up in it. And

yeah, but welcome folks might maybe be surprised or maybe fully. waiting for this discussion

if they've been paying attention to our Twitter feed. We started discussion on there, but

it's nearly impossible to do in a productive way, sometimes even in a respective way. So

Desmond invited me to have this conversation out in the open. And that conversation, I mean,

it has parts, but generally it surrounds the campaign of ebongler, the mechanisms used

to block him, the discussions around it, and yeah, rather than do that over the internet,

and since more people than you and I are having this discussion, hopefully you can live vicariously

through us and unpack it together with us here today. Before we get started, I mean, like

I said, Desmond before we recorded my bias or even disdain for the NDP will be painfully

obvious. I admit and I might share there are personal experiences that I bring sometimes

productively to this conversation and sometimes very emotionally to this conversation and

so they absolutely influence how I see this and respond to what's happening right now.

And some of the arguments around vetting, around insurgency or protest campaigns, some

of these opinions might be Desmond's, they might not be. em When I'm talking to him, we're just

kind of talking about the issue. We're not owning all of these em viewpoints. I mean,

unless we openly express them, right? You'll hear us unpack things we'll agree upon and

things that maybe we're just gonna have to leave and move on at some point. uh As comrade should

do right? I also might at some point refer to Eve's detractors I'll try not to do that

and be so general um But but I will at some point refer to Abby's camp. That's Abby Lewis,

of course for Because I think I Felt a lot of the arguments that I wanted to kind of unpack

came from there vocally So I want people to be clear that I'm not, again, speaking about

Desmond. I don't want to call out every comrade by name either. So I just kind of wanted to

lay a bit of that groundwork because the vitriol I think that Desmond's facing online right

now, maybe a little bit is misplaced and it can be attributed to like the larger arguments

or interactions that are happening around this and not directly with either one of us directly,

you know, or individually rather. So did that feel fair, Desmond? Oh, absolutely. uh I mean,

first of all, I just want to say thank you to you for agreeing to have this conversation

because I'm generally of the belief that we can disagree about most of these issues and

not not feel like uh anyone who disagrees is in bad faith or anyone who disagrees has a

secret motive that they're kind of hiding. Um, and I feel like the truncated conversations

that happen on social media really feed into that. And it's just better to sit down and

like, be like, what do you mean by that? Why are you saying that? Why aren't you saying

this or that and have a fulsome discussion that doesn't trail off into 30 different areas

or have 50 people all trying to have one conversation or five conversations. It just doesn't work

for me. And so, you know, you're putting out some disclosures at the beginning too. Uh,

when I first started talking about the uh, leadership campaign after it had begun, I

made it really clear on the breach that I don't support any of the candidates in this race.

I didn't want to cover this race being favorable to one or another candidate. I just wanted

to cover the race. I was a member of the NDP about 15 years ago, Jess. I don't know if you

know that, but like I signed up in the convention where Mulcair ultimately was the one that got.

chosen as the leader. And I let my membership lapse after that and I have never come back.

I hope people can understand, but that was the end for me. Um, I've been asked to run

several times by the NDP. I've said no every time I'm interested in covering the NDP and

I'm interested in what they say and do in this country. But I've actually tried really hard

not to be invested in particular candidates or like on the party's successes. as a whole.

That doesn't mean I don't have opinions. have lots of opinions. uh But there's uh been some

talk, especially online, that I must be supporting the Avi Lewis campaign because I've had some

critiques of the Engler, Eve Engler campaign. And I think it's worth noting my managing

editor at the Breach Martin Luke Catch is openly supporting and advising Avi Lewis. And I think

this very silly thing has happened where people are like, well, that must mean Desmond. is

or he's partisan to it or he's getting pulled in that direction. And I would just say to

people like, I've been talking about this party and being around it for almost 20 years. I

don't need to take my cues from somebody who I work with to figure out what I think. In

fact, I've felt like I've really made a career being pretty independent of the people that

I work for and being willing to even walk away from people that I work for when they try to

impose things on me. And I, that hasn't changed. So I'm very interested in the race as an

observer, but not as a supporter of anyone. I think that might surprise some people. So

I'm glad that you got it out there. We know how association works, not always in the

best way. Not that you're trying to disassociate yourself from your comrades, but there was

an episode, I think, that focused on the NDP leadership race. I think that in part also

tied you to the opinions of your co-host. And that's a tough spot to be in as a podcast interviewer.

uh I understand that tricky spot. Yeah, I just want, I have my own critiques and I want to

be held accountable for the things that I say, not the things that other people say. I think

that's pretty fair. All right. And we're going to hear what those are. I mean, we're not going

to get into the nitty gritty of validating every single thing about Yves Engler. or

his campaign, but his is a bit of a case study that allows us to examine some of these broader

issues that have been part of the party since it existed, right? So they're not new. We don't

have to stick to his case alone, but obviously that's why we're talking about it right now.

And most recently, the discussion has shifted to the issue of vetting. Vetting in this case

meant a three, person committee created through the NDP structure that evaluated the candidates

and they recently blocked Eve. We'll link the rejection letter because we might refer

to it and the points that they made or didn't make so you can see for yourself. But it's

brought up a discussion about vetting and you know, it didn't start with the blocking. I

think most of us anticipated that we would get to this point. Yes, I certainly did that we

would be talking about it I mean I am never going to support vetting in the way that it's

framed right now. I think Folks might be surprised about your position though Desmond like

how do you feel about eve getting blocked? Let's start there obviously, uh It wasn't much of

a surprise to me. I think that the way that the party has chosen to disqualify eve angler

is disgraceful. It feels very cowardly um because it feels like what they did mainly was take

a bunch of political issues that people, quite frankly, within the NDP may or may not agree

on. Like there's variation within the party about how people feel about a lot of political

issues, but they've kind of framed those political issues as though it's like to be part of this

party, you have to believe these things politically or you're disqualified. And I think that that's

uh an abuse of a vetting process. So when it comes to saying that Eve Engler has said certain

things about Russia or he has said um certain positions uh about Assad and Syria, by the

way, the evidence that they provided for these claims was incredibly weak, I would say in

most cases. But I don't actually think uh I don't think that that's really enough. I

think that those kinds of things, it feels like they threw a whole bunch of stuff at the wall

to see what would stick, hoping that people would take one or the other of their points

of like, this is why we don't want you running for leadership and be like, oh, I agree with

that. So good. It's fair. Or a little bit with everything, right? Yeah. Yeah. So I think

that there's like a really, really big problem with that. I would say at the same time though,

Jessa, that I've noticed that what a lot of people who've been critical of me have been

disappointed in me for is that they want me to come out and say outright that Eve should

be included in the race, that I should be advocating for his inclusion, particularly because I myself

have faced, you know, unfair scrutiny and abuses from institutions before. So I should be sympathetic

to what he's going. So first of all, I believe that a party has the right to have some kind

of vetting process. And I kind of actually think that it's necessary. I cannot imagine a political

party where someone's trying to run for political power on an ideology where there's no vetting,

where there are no parameters for you being allowed to run. I don't think that makes any

sense to me. And from what I talk about with most people, I think most people are like,

there has to be some lines. probably all have different ideas of where the line should be,

but there have to be some, in my opinion. It's up to the NDP to set those lines. Now, many

people have said, but it's not democratic, it's this shadowy three-person vetting committee.

We don't even know who they are. That's true. uh But what I have observed watching Evangler

try to apply is that people are comfortable with there being one set of vetting rules for

everybody else and then a different set for him. He has even now that he's been rejected

gone as far as saying the other candidates should suspend their campaigns, even though they've

already been vetted until well, he doesn't say until what he kind of just says until democracy

is served, ah which I think suggests until he's allowed into the race and he's appealing his

rejection to the federal council. By the way, you can appeal your rejection. He appealed

his rejection. They gave him a one line reaffirmation. No, you're not in. So now the only recourse

he has, I guess, is the federal council of the NDP reversing all of these decisions. Good

luck with that. Yeah, I know. Well, I don't know that a three-person vetting committee

deciding these things is democratic. I also, though, don't think it's democratic to have

five people go into the race, get in on one vetting process, and then to let a different

person in on a completely different vetting process, which is essentially what Eve Engler

is asking for now. Okay, I don't think I don't think that's right and this last thing. Okay,

I don't think it's right that If you want to change the vetting process of the NDP That

you should be doing that in the middle of a leadership race If the membership wants to

have control over what the vetting looks like in the future. I think that's absolutely correct

You cannot change that in the middle of a race that some people have already completed and

gone Okay, you me a lot to unpack there. uh Let's shelve the vetting is necessary because

that's a separate conversation and we're gonna have it, but I'm not just gonna like wax off

on you on that. We'll go back and forth on that. Cause I think that that'll be a very interesting

conversation. But I think the first thing I'm gonna just challenge, cause it's the first

thing I see in my notes um is this idea that him asking to suspend. I hadn't even heard

this, just. Yeah, it came out on the weekend, I think. Yeah. Asking them to suspend in protest,

I don't think is necessarily asking them to follow different rules because I don't for

two reasons. One, they've suspended each other's campaigns before in solidarity so they can

reach milestones. So it's like not that far of a stretch that he's asking them to just

like throw. the campaign in the air and somehow risk, take risks. I mean, they should, they

did it for each other, but um I'm surprised he's appealing to them. I don't think they'll

do it. But two, we know that there are different rules applied already by this committee and

HQ because of our experience. We know that being outspoken on some issues is okay and

others is not. Some behaviors are okay. So the way that they apply their harassment criteria

will vary person to person. So there is no actual objectivity in the vetting process. So to assume

that there was actually check marks and criteria like weight, height, things that can be measured,

it's not. It's always arbitrary and it's always been used to just weed out people from power,

not from membership, not from paying dues, right? This is a process that's only once applied.

when you want to seek any kind of power and then it's completely administered by those

already in power. So asking them to suspend their campaigns when some of them have been

a little bit critical of, I mean some of them should be reformists or I don't know what

folks are doing out there. And so at what point do we talk about it? Right, that brings

me to your next point about like the timing in the middle of the campaign. When do we talk

about it? Because they don't let you talk about council. That is a set agenda. We've tried.

uh Folks have tried on EDA level by resigning en masse because of the vetting process and

they just replace everybody. We've tried at executive, like by trying to win at convention.

We've tried by uh people folks put resolutions in. There's been petitions signed. There's

been all kinds of avenues tried, but nobody's actually ever run for president on a platform

that includes reforms that are otherwise not ever talked about. timing again is kind of

getting drifting into the discussion of whether their tactics are valid or not. And it's like,

well, when this party has rejected almost every valid avenue of protest, folks are going to

then should be prepared and ready to support. people who are then going outside or walking

a gray line on these rules, regulations, and norms, because all the other avenues try to

fail so far, right? And hurt people, right, when they try to follow all the rules and

still they end up banging their head against the wall. So I think that that's a little bit

unfair, but appealing to federal council, these are the same people that kind of formed the

committee. I don't see that as an avenue. It's just, it's just another one of those kind of

dead end streets for people who are trying to reform the party. So I'd like to also talk,

like feel free to obviously address anything I've just said there, but, then, and move

on to the discussion of vetting and whether, whether we do need it or not. Okay. So first

of all, I guess the question is when you decide that you're going to, um, apply to be part

of a process, uh Do you accept the result of the process? Like we can argue that a process

is fair or unfair, but it feels to me like this whole campaign of Engler's has been like,

I won't accept the result if it's not what I want. Eve Engler said at the beginning of

running for office, and he said many times throughout the campaign, I know because I've followed

many things that he has put out, interviews that he's done, all of his Facebook and social

media posts. He said before, the rejection, that he was just gonna go on as if it didn't

mean anything if they rejected him. So is this in good faith? Like, are you going to accept

the decision of the body that you submitted yourself to? Because that's the part of this

to me that seems so weird, is that it's like, I'm asking you to make a decision, but also

you don't have the right to make the decision. So it's very confounding. And as for like,

you know, the federal council thing and appealing to the federal council and then asking other

people to suspend their campaigns. Well, if we all know it's futile and it's not going

to go anywhere, I agree. Like I remember uh Tony McPhail suspended the fundraising for

his campaign so that he could help to Neil Johnston fundraise as well so that they could both get

across a fundraising threshold. That was a beautiful moment, actually. It's one of the actually

like nice things that has happened in this race. where two people were supporting one another,

right? um But no, he's asking people not to suspend fundraising, but to suspend their entire

campaign for something that it feels like none of us believe is actually going to happen.

And when I say different rules or in the middle of the race, what I'm saying is essentially

what I feel like Eva Engler has told us all is if I get accepted by this corrupt, evil,

uh Immoral party and its vetting committee then it's fine It's actually fine that there are

all those things if I get accepted if I don't get accepted Then it's not okay that they're

immoral and corrupt and unfair and we have to do something about it uh I am sympathetic to

what you're saying about how people have tried so many different things within this party

to try and get it to change and It is for that exact reason Jessa that I am so ambivalent

about the NDP It's organizing and it's fortunes and it's future. This is why I kind of divest

myself from getting to into the middle of that because you can start another political party.

You can decide to try and engage yourself in politics in different ways than capital P electoral

politics, but to go into an institution that has a set of norms and to say, we're going

to actually just Dis uh, like we're going to um Delegitimize everything that this party

does but then also say we should be at the head of it I don't think that reads to most people.

I don't think most people understand how you can hold those two positions at the same time

that feel like you want to Take the party down But then also that it would be good for you

to be at the head of it. One last thing it Like this party has members. We keep talking

about democracy and about members. The party has members. They should be the ones to

decide what happens with vetting. And yes, I am critical of the idea that it actually

should be led by a candidate who has an interest in the middle of the process because he's

in it. I don't think that's really like weird or controversial to say. the members don't

have a say. They can't shape it. That's been the problem and one of the major gripes with

the campaign from the beginning, right? Like, because they were honest going like, they're

not going to vet us, or they're going to try to block us. And this is why we're holding

on and submitting our papers, because we are anticipating this. so I don't think, again,

I don't think it's fair to say that he would say this is fine, if he had been accepted,

because it is in their platform. reforms on the vetting process completely as well. But

he wanted to be accepted under the current process that he says is completely unfair. Yeah, but

we do this. We do this all the time. Right. Like and in terms of like coming up as insurgent

campaigns, we often encourage them. I mean, if you were looking at a union like Liuna,

right. Real pieces of shit and traitors to the movement. If there was a campaign there from

a uh member in good standing, that was just like, this is a corrupt institution. The bosses

at the top are in it with the developers. They are selling out our comrades across all movements

and we are gonna come up and we are gonna reshape this. You're not even gonna recognize this

place. uh We'd be standing back and applauding them. We'd be like, that is awesome. Someone's

finally gonna take over that institution and fix it up. And we wouldn't be so critical

on like, cause they're speaking. really, really badly of the system, or we wouldn't say, just

leave and find a new union, create a new union, um because that's not an option for a lot of

people. I don't want to take over the party. I think it's a lost cause. I think you should

just start building your mailing list from scratch if that's what you're afraid of or what people

want out of the NDP. Reform is a huge fucking task. But if people want to run up in a campaign,

that appears like a burn it down campaign, I'm not going to be the one to uh criticize

them because I did the same thing, right? Like I ran as president with no intention of winning

really because nobody knew me and I knew the establishment would put up everything against

me, but that was my main gripe. And it was like, well, I don't care what they do to me.

I don't care if this looks badly on the party. This needs to be aired. Like people need to

know how they're treating our activist friends, how they're treating smaller writing associations.

There was a list of gripes, but that was the only reason I wanted to get in there was to

raise this issue because, you know, other than the 30 seconds to three minutes you might get

on the mic if you jump in on time at the right mic and that resolution happens to be up.

So that's the subject you get to talk about. If you wanted to talk about party reforms,

good luck. Good luck! There was no space for that. So, one of the biggest platforms then

we thought of was a presidential campaign with a whole slate and we were all going to talk

about it and then finally at least people in convention, which is pretty closed doors,

would hear it. And it did nothing. I mean we got 30 % of the vote so there was clearly an

appetite for it but it yielded absolutely nothing except, ah you know, they came after me and

some of my friends. and they burned out a lot of people who tried really really hard to reform

it. But my point is, you know, it was completely an insurgent campaign and the loyalists,

they hated me for it, you know, because I was airing dirty laundry publicly and that's like

publicly. Like I didn't have a big platform and it was convention. Who's watching CPAC?

Like except some of us. Some of us nerds, yeah. But you know now this is a very public stage

the most public space that the NDP will ever afford a member to speak period period if

you have something that you would like the world to know about the NDP or at least for everyone

who follows the NDP to finally hear you or hear this message like imperialism a real take

on Gaza like they are so weak we know what that means I think here and issues within the party

Real issues, not this vague, oh, we gotta center more voices, we have to sit more people at

the table. Like real structural problems with the party. And they figured this was the

only way to get it aired. Win, lose, it didn't matter. Yes, they took a stage. To me, it was

a stun. I think some people probably thought it of a serious campaign. I didn't, and I

apologize if that hurts some comrades to hear that, but I never viewed it that way. I thought

of it always as, a protest kind of stunt picture people walking into the Giller with a ticket,

with a ticket. They followed all the rules. They signed the terms and conditions. Yeah,

yeah, yeah. I'm here, but I am actually here to disrupt the fuck out of it. I want you to

talk about Gaza. Right. So like that. I agree that it was a stunt and I also have received

a lot of criticism for just being honest about that, um because I think it's my job to just

call it as I see it there. But I think just to wrap this idea up, what I would say is ultimately

the membership have to be the ones raising their voices along with the person who's doing

the insurgency thing. Emily Lowen got thousands of members, not just to sign up, but to raise

their voices along with her in British Columbia. And now she's the leader of the BC Green Party.

So to the extent that what Eve is doing, and by the way, when you talk about getting on

the stage, he's not on the stage. He wanted to be in the debates. He wanted to be included

so that he could do those things and he's not there. And so he doesn't have access to the

big stage that he wanted to be able to say these things. And ultimately to me, even if it's

a leadership campaign, um I don't like the assumption that people are fine with something just because

they don't speak up. I think it's always hard to kind of, we can't attribute something to

people when they're not saying anything. But because of that, I can't assume that most members

of the NDP hate this vetting process and want to get rid of it. The only way that we can

know that is if through Eve Engler doing this kind of a campaign, thousands of them rise

up and say, finally a candidate who's speaking to this unfair vetting process, we're with

him. I didn't see that, Jessa. And I think that's the reason why if things don't change after

this, that they won't change. Because I don't see how he engaged the actual membership that

exists now. to be like, you guys are with me, this is a problem, let's all rise up together.

It's been him and a very loyal group of his supporters, many of whom are not part of the

party who were waiting to see whether he'd get in to sign up or who said, if he doesn't get

in, I am quitting this party. And I think that this is the weakness of the strategy is that

that push can't just come from a charismatic leading figure. It's gotta come from a very,

very broad portion of the grassroots to get the party's attention. But it did at a time,

right? At one point in the Ontario NDP, we had the signatures and support of dozens of writings.

And I mean, in Ontario, if you know, a lot of those writings are actually just completely

controlled by HQ, right? There's not even anybody there working. And so to get a large number

of writings was pretty big. And we did make a lot of noise as a collective. We didn't have

a shiny figure. Like literally no one knew who I was and I wasn't leading the pack. That was

just during convention. We pressed on every avenue and we weren't the first, you know?

the fact that the NDP or that these insurgent campaigns are somehow like destructive, um

you're kind of closing off a bit of the umbrella. It's not just like this handful of people.

There are a lot of people who feel politically homeless because not just the vetting, but

this vetting has been a tool to punish socialists and pro-Palestinian activists for the large

part, or people who are outspoken critics of the party. So it's not just like, oh, we need

all these members to speak up against vetting. Some of these members are actually, frankly,

quite clueless when it comes to how the party actually operates. It surprises me when I get

engaged in conversations and how naive people are like, well, just bring a resolution to

convention. And it's like, you have no idea the structures that are built up against folks

to suppress the idea of kind of reform. But I agree with you fully that that blocking of

Eve should be enough to have people rise up. But we've seen them before. We've seen them

just kind of when you're facing political homelessness, you will let a lot of stuff slide in house.

And you will find yourself defending, not you Desmond, right? Defending stuff that you normally

wouldn't. Partisans will do this, right? And I'm going to use an example and I am going

to name Sid Ryan because he's not just... I don't feel like I'm punching down. And before

Eve was blocked, he wrote a big long piece on vetting, defending vetting as a concept.

The commies do it, so why can't we? I saw that, yeah. I couldn't really understand it then,

and I challenged him on it and was vilified by the usual suspects, waffle party kids.

um you know, got gripes with the Lewis camp and those are valid gripes, but we'll get

to those perhaps, maybe we won't. you know, then the second Eve is blocked, we see a

statement by him. Oh, well, this isn't right. Well, I mean, maybe Eve didn't reach enough

people. Maybe he didn't pass vetting because so many people spent a considerable amount

of energy. shitting on his campaign and questioning him and not like McPherson, like who's attended

the trilateral commission of like the most evil capitalists you can imagine, or you know

the other candidates. It's all kumbaya, which is great. I love these warm feelings, but

like you need massive reform in that party apparently, right? That's what members are saying. They

may not say they don't like vetting, but they know that party is like dumped. Right? It needs

something, anything. They can all agree on that. And it's starting by opening that umbrella

to the left, not just to the right. And this is just another time of them saying, no, I'd

rather burn it down. Like New Brunswick, you know, the waffle party won there and they

won the leadership and a lot of the apparatus. And they're like, guess what? We'll decertify

you. And they did. And then socialist won again in New Brunswick and Chris Thompson, the interim

leader there, he faced similar rhetoric or threats rather. from head office going, oh

no, no, you're not gonna be no socialist party, we will delist you. So Emily Loewen might have

done something great and I want the best for these campaigns, ah but we don't know what

kind of compromises she's gonna have to make with the Green Party to be revolutionary if

that's their goal. They will have to walk a lot of lines to simply continue to exist.

It's not as easy as that. And I think people liked the fact that Eve push the boundaries,

right? That's what I mean. That's what a of me, a lot of people clearly liked it. And the

point of a stunt campaign is to get people's attention. So I feel like it's a little rich

to do weird, unconventional things, to get attention and then be like, why is everyone paying so

much attention to me? But you're you're trying to do things unconventionally for the purpose

of that. So like calling yourself an NDP candidate when you haven't even applied to be an NDP

candidate. This was the first thing that I called out that people got upset at. I'm look, the

NDP vetting committee is not being like, well, we are going to fairly evaluate Eve Engler's

application. But first, let's see what Desmond has to say about it. Like, yeah, if you're

going to be calling yourself a candidate, you should at least apply to be a candidate. You

should say I'm a prospective NDP candidate because I haven't actually taken the time to apply

yet. These things aren't like the rules are shit But I'm gonna submit myself to the rules

and then I'm gonna complain that the rules are shit like there has to be some kind of union

Somewhere and obviously not enough people within this party are taking Like I have to assume

without any other knowledge that most people in the party are either not paying attention

Like you said don't have the info about what the vetting process is like or that they support

it. That is his major obstacle that was his major obstacle coming into it. I think you

and I agree it continues to be um the obstacle now, but maybe we could talk about vetting

more broadly. Yeah. And to lead into vetting that language that we're talking about, that

perspective, people might not understand why that's important. the party, uh you tell them

you're interested, you get sent a nomination package with a warning that also says like,

do not tell anybody. uh that you're applying for this. ah Don't announce anything until

you've completed the vetting. But one of the major reasons for that is to hide the vetting

process. It's to shame people because once you get denied, ah most people, we don't hear about

it. I will get DMs. I've got a long list of people I would never air it that have been

blocked and just don't want anyone to know. It's embarrassing. Your own party blocked you

and you're still paying dues. ah I wouldn't want to tell anybody either. So they don't

want you announcing because then they have to explain why they blocked you. So someone who's

not going to prescribe to that is again, trying to challenge that system head on that has been

a problem for people. And I don't think you need vetting. I understand like Vancouver

Tenants Union. And I'm sorry if it's not a hard line for them, but I'm okay with people

creating a basis of unity. Like I understand organizing in spaces where you wanna make sure

it's a productive space, it's a safe space, it's free from folks that will be a problem.

And as a group, you can kind of find common values and list them, right? Tenants you must

prescribe to, we saw this with the encampments. If you were gonna enter the encampments, you

had to believe that in the right to Palestinian resistance. There's a list and this is not

unusual nor unfair, but that is to enter the space that's to protect the whole space and

grow meaningfully. But the NDP will take your money, they'll take your time, they'll take

all of that energy, um but only apply vetting to restrict your access to power. And so if

you want to create a basis of unity. should be for people who want to participate, not

as a strictly gatekeeping mechanism, which is what they have now. I was trying to find good

examples, Like folks were even be like, right? And it was like, could find one. And I can't

even remember his name, Paul Miller. Right, right. In Ontario. He was an MPP at the time.

And they were like, you're not running again. There was... I mean, allegations of misconduct

in his office and they were just like, there's no way you're running again. And people had

been demanding that for some time. And so I'm not sure what happened around that totally.

So I'm like, maybe, maybe like, cause like, you know, but still I think you bring this

membership together. You should trust them enough to kind of make these decisions and of who

is electable, who is not electable, who has a valid campaign, who doesn't. I mean, if it's

not a legitimate campaign, then it's going to crash and burn. Yeah. A lot of things can

happen along the way as it crashes and burns and other people can be harmed in the process

while it crashes and burns. If we know that somebody in our community, for example, um

has been abusive to people. And I'm not talking about this in a legal context. One of the interesting

things that they did in the uh I know all parties do this. They'll ask you things like, have

you ever been arrested before as part of a vetting process? All right. I think in this one, they

said, have you been kicked out of university? And it just so happens that Eve Engler was

for his actions in Concordia in, I believe, 2000. So parties ask all kinds of things of

people because they don't want to, in their eyes, be embarrassed later if things that they

didn't know about somebody come out while they're now representing the party. So forget about

the law and like a criminal conviction, but let's just say we know. someone in our community

has been abusing other people. Should there be no process to say you're not allowed to

represent this party? If we know that somebody is racist, should there be no provision whatsoever,

sexist, homophobic, transphobic? There should be no barrier to them getting up on a stage

next to people who abhor those values, who are fighting against those values. We're gonna

give a platform to somebody who believes those things and wants to spew them. in the name

of not having a vetting process because let the membership decide, I can see why people

would have a huge problem with that. But why would you allow this person to access every

other part of that community? Right? So that means they are in an EDA. That means they are

working on campaigns. That means they're attending a convention. And so if... uh Because the

party is a hierarchy by its nature. because the party is a hierarchy that has a leadership,

that has an executive, and that that's the way that it's structured. So people might not think

that Jim from Etobicoke, who's transphobic, represents the NDP, and they might be able

to disavow him if he says transphobic things. They can't disavow a leadership candidate who

says those things, though. That's the reason, because it's a hierarchy, and it's fair to

assume that people who hold higher positions within the party or are seeking them are representing

the party as a whole. That would be my answer. Sure. But that's not what's happening whatsoever

either. Like so we've just allowed I think we're just bypassing the fact that we're just

going to let anybody into the party but only filter out their harmful behavior should they

try to run for leader or maybe be an MP or something like that. And I think like that's

my point. And I started off by saying a basis of unity is fine. I mean, it's easier to form

with a smaller group. The problem is the NDP is also a marketing campaign and their concern

isn't values based. It's uh money. It's drawing in as many members as possible, being the broadest

uh umbrella possible without bringing in any radicals because they think that siphons off

of their funds that they could receive from liberals and other maybe non-decided voters.

So we've never seen the... vetting process really kind of pan out that way. It's repeatedly

been weaponized against dissenters and mostly pro-Palestinian activists within the party.

They don't just do it at vetting. They do try to filter out people that they see as problems

and they do it in the same way, you know, with this really broad anti-harassment document

and It's all applied very arbitrarily and over and over and over again, this mechanism

has proven to use it in this way, right? To isolate folks. And so I felt like a lot of

people who are taking um this position are helping that. They're helping with that isolation and

validating that because the people, especially when you're talking about Eve's campaign, I

mean, some of them might believe in centralization because there's a lot of Marxists there and

and whatnot, but a lot of the grassroots do take a real issue with the fact that this progressive

institution operates as such a hierarchy. So you're going to see people go in there and

try to challenge that in different ways, right? That might be abrasive. It's not to not question

people and to not hold their feet to the fire. I understand, especially from your perspective

as a journalist that challenges people in power, going for power. um But yeah, because I view

this from the perspective of an activist campaign, I would like if people treated it more as such.

And maybe there's a fine line that we can draw there. I mean, sorry, I just. Part of. Go

ahead. No, go ahead. What it was kind of an illusion that you said to like letting people

do things. I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything. I have opinions. By the way, there

are people within the party that have the same opinions about some of these things that I

do. I think people resent me because I have built a very large platform over the years.

And so it's more important when I say things that they don't agree with, but like, I'm

not preventing people from making these arguments. I'm not even in the party. The party, imagine

the NDP carrying what I say when I've been pushing back against the NDP on things like racial

profiling for 15 years and criticizing them for their absolute failures to confront police

power. They don't care what I say. But it's like this thing that gets attributed where

it's like, well, you're speaking loudly. So now you're helping them. I don't draw that

conclusion. I'm not going to remain silent given that I have opinions on all kinds of things

and people are free to agree or disagree with those things. People can make these arguments.

They have to make them within a party that is incredibly at this time resistant. to their

offerings and to their efforts. And that's a really hard climb. You know, I think that

saying that those of us who believe in activism and who believe in insurgency, uh if we're

not going to outright help these things, should at least sit back and let them happen. We're

all political people here. We all have ideas. We all have opinions about how things are meant

to be done. If somebody offers a better opinion than mine and is able to convince more people

within the party that it's correct. I mean, I'm not speaking to the party. I'm speaking

to the breach audience or I'm speaking to my audience on social media. I actually don't

want to convert anybody in the NDP to any particular idea. I want my ideas to be out there and to

be thought about by a wide range of people. But I'm certainly not preventing Eve Engler

or anyone else from doing or saying anything by having an opinion. I, and I, it has bothered

me throughout all of this that sometimes that's the interpretation. Uh, but you know what?

I'm a big boy, Jess. I've been doing this for a long time. I have to accept people's criticism,

which is why I wanted to come on with you. And I just want to point out to people that even

Angler was presenting himself in this race to potentially run for prime minister of Canada.

So I think he can probably handle criticisms as well and he has to as somebody who's been

going up to politicians For many years holding their feet to the fire when you want to jump

and jump into politics as well You have to accept that people are going to do the same thing

to you and the criticisms should be fair but um They're going to come I don't think a lot

of the criticisms he faced were fair and like the reminder that we kind of put up at the

top of the show where when we're arguing about positions, sometimes they're not your positions,

but they certainly were widely circulated positions that, you know, it was illegitimate.

And in fact, you you're kind of, you're arguing like for the legitimacy of vetting, right?

Which does then silence a huge chunk of the I just believe, I just believe in some kind

of vetting. And until someone shows me that the NDP membership writ large, does not, I

have to assume that they also believe in some kind of vetting. I'm not here to prescribe

exactly what that should look like, but I would never want to be part of a political organization

that didn't have any. And I'm going to guess that most people feel the same way, but I'm

happy to be proven wrong. Maybe we can poll folks. I'm not sure, but yeah, no, it's a discussion

that members should be exploring amongst themselves when they see it lead to this over and over

again. But I do want to hit on, and it's part of the structured talk that we were going to

have about how folks interact with this discussion and talking about criticizing or not criticizing.

And I think when we look at it from our two different perspectives there, I understand

that. where we don't come to an agreement. But I am not saying that his campaign or anybody

else's campaign should be without criticism. I think they should be fair. A lot of them

have not been fair. Like talking about, we still haven't even passed the deadline to put

in your papers for nomination, right? And so there were so many people that said, oh yeah,

well then put your papers in. And it was all a matter of not agreeing with his strategy,

but being so openly hostile about going another way, doing it a different way, using more

strategic language to be more effective. Like these are all kind of tactical decisions that

like you, in my position where we interview activists all the time, we talk about how

it's a myriad of tactics that will eventually take us where we need to go. We don't know

which ones are going to work even as we're executing them and they seem like they'll be successful

or sometimes failures make ripple effects that then down the road lead to where we need to

go. we just, it's such a crap shoot and just like armchair quarterbacks, you know, we can,

it's not very helpful to while someone's in the middle of a campaign or a push against

power because Yves Engler was just as much trying to get power, which is like the leader,

a seatless leader of a seven seat party at the moment with no resources, but it was more

a challenge to power, right? He was challenging HQ. He was challenging imperialism and making

that like the be all end all. So for a protest campaign to be, it's this tricky line like.

Are you punching up or are you punching down? Because he's not actually in power. No one

will let him even near the race to be power because he is talking about the powerful in

that way. Right? Largely that's really what kept him out. And so that's to me how we

look at each other and we call each other. Maybe we form circles. Maybe we send messages. Maybe

we do have discussions and critiques, but we usually do postmortems after a campaign. You

know, like if you were in the NDP, uh it's not, you know, it's almost law that while the

campaign is running during an election, you don't say squat negative about your party.

Right. Like they even they cop to that during a partisanship to protect their own. But that's

not why we do it in activism. We do it because we can't like disown the most radical elements

among us. Right. And yeah. Can I can I ask a practical question? about how I saw this

playing out. So one of the things that I saw Eve Engler being criticized for in terms of

Just Apply was that a lot of people thought he would have been excellent in debates. And

we saw an atrocious NDP debate happen um in the last few weeks where it was in Montreal.

It was supposed to be a mainly French speaking debate. The candidates could not speak French.

uh It was very, very embarrassing seeing people up there in Quebec saying, I think learning

your language is really important. I just haven't done it yet. It was awful. And starting there.

You know, and so like a lot of people wanted Eve Engler in this race so that he could participate

in debates. So Jessa, what do you make then of people saying when Eve Engler says, I'm

being kept out of these debates? Remember my criticism about earlier. saying and acting

like you're on the same level as the other candidates in terms of your status when you're

not. Is it right for Eve Engler to not apply, to know that it's going to take time when

he does apply to be vetted? And then while he's being vetted, be like, I can't believe they

didn't let me into this debate that is for candidates. What do you make of that? You're being so generous

to HQ. Okay, they knew he was going to apply. He didn't put in his papers, but don't tell

me they weren't scouring every inch of his social media to make sure they were ready to block

him. And then they released that paper that was like diddly-squash. I could have put that

together in five minutes. But they told him the second they got his papers that they would

not have it done in time and that they would take even longer. They managed to get five

candidates with extensive organizing records themselves. Tony's been around a long time

running this, that, the anything, advocating for green party, right? Talking about running

the green party together. They don't, they don't take issue with that, but they, they vet all

those five people. No problem. Then it did take them weeks to do the other candidates

there too. know that, right? Like two weeks. Not two weeks. That's not correct. they have

bylaws that they're supposed to be, uh, Following in terms of the length of time they take with

vetting it says after four weeks. I read the rules It says after four weeks you can send

them a letter So they give themselves in the rules four weeks to do it, right? Right. So

my point is though they knew Eve was going to vet right? They knew Eve was going to submit

papers and they already told him when they submitted it You're not gonna have it in time for the

debate So yes, I think those folks miscalculated how okay how unscrupulous the uh vetting committee

would be, that they would deploy absolutely every bit of bureaucracy against them. And

they did, right? To the party's detriment in the end. But uh yeah, they waited too late.

But why is nobody asking instead? Why do you take so long vetting people, right? what are

you, it's a questionnaire. Because they take such deep dives. They're like the US Customs.

They are going through your social media for years. Like, why aren't we asking then? Why

is that? Why are you doing this? Why does it take so long? Hold on, please. Yeah, go ahead.

Right. So and also, why aren't we asking why they're holding such critical leadership events

with a due date of submitting your nomination two months later? So it's like sometime in

January, folks have until like we could still get another candidate. I don't know. And,

but we're having like, who planned this? That we'll go all the way to March, we're in November,

two months before we cut people off, we're gonna start holding the leadership debates. We're

gonna start completely platforming these five candidates and just go with it. Like as though

it's fully in check and we haven't passed that nomination date. No other race works that way.

When you're in an EDA and there's a nomination for a candidate, once we get We don't start

running campaigns properly until the nomination's been set, right? But this was unusual, so unusual.

I wonder if maybe they heard Eve was gonna hold on to his non-papers and they just started

platforming these five people as fast as possible. But nobody's asking that and that is a theme

for me. That's why it feels like punching down because we're asking so many questions about

Eve's campaign. When did he know he was rejected? When did he tell you? When did he put his

papers in? How long did they take? Like, why are you saying this? Why are you approaching

it that way? But like, nobody's asking why Avi Lewis is timing his campaign in the way that

he has. I mean, I raised a lot of concerns, but I don't see anybody else doing it. I don't

see anybody questioning HQ's timing. I don't see anybody questioning why Heather MacPherson

is oddly silent or platforming Zionists. I saw Eve asking. but why she's platforming Zionists

during her campaign while wearing a watermelon pin. And so it felt so, not just you, so again,

I'm not talking about Desmond, but this is the experience, like on Facebook, on social media,

there was just an overwhelming bad focus on Eve's campaign. Like just it felt hypercritical

at a time where we could have been hypercritical of the party, because we don't ever really

get to do that. And then, That's what really puzzles me about your response there that one

day where you were just like, I don't feel the need to always, you know, go at the broad critique

of the party. Sometimes, you know, there's an individual issue we want to talk about, but

I was like, but today of all days when they use the vetting to block another one of us

was kind of like, felt again, like punching down, like, why aren't we now enraged at the,

this This rejection that you admit is bullshit, right? Like at least the points that they've

provided are weak. Like that I felt if there was a time for us to focus our energy, it was

to punch up together there. Right. So I want to, I want to ask about punching down or punching

at all, because I don't think criticism is punching. That's the first thing. It's criticism.

We all receive it. I've received it. I don't feel like I'm being punched. Uh, but how am

I punching beneath myself? This is a person who's written 13 books who is known internationally

for his work. This is a person who's seeking a federal political party office who raised

over a hundred thousand dollars in a few weeks, who's been written in the Globe and Mail and

the Toronto Star and the National Post. If I tweet some things saying, I don't really understand

this or I think that that is problematic. How am I punching down on that candidate? Well,

I mean, if you don't think any criticism is punching, it would hard for me to like convince

you or make an argument to that. and I think even my language is problematic there because

it made you feel as though I meant punching down from you, which is not accurate. So

let me perhaps reframe that with different language. Maybe I might end up using punching,

but rather it was an option. I felt like you had options in a few circumstances that I

just kind of talked about, so I won't go over it, but where you could have punched up and

I felt you punched to the insurgent campaign. So from my perspective, like we've got bosses

and then you've got people coming in and going after them. And in a moment where they had

suffered a blow, we were asking about the timing of something to do with that campaign

that had just suffered a blow versus punching up to HQ. So, and there were a couple of circumstances

that that's when I use that reference with you. But I mean, The whole campaign was not void

of like those kinds of circumstances where rather than asking and spending the time to talk about

these fundamental problems, um it was, he's like an ego maniac. It felt like a lot of

times it went just like personal dislikes of Eve and a condemnation of tactics that we

would celebrate in other grassroots campaigns that are. you know, have different targets

than the NDP. um But a lot of people protect the NDP. Not you. Not Desmond. He's on the

record. He is critical. He... Eyes wide open. I'm not teaching him anything here. ah But,

you know, there are people that um still buy into a lot of this. And I thought this was

an opportunity for us, for anyone to capitalize on this, to expose it. Not to just... real

people back in because I'm just going to take a second here to help people understand also

why it's so personal and I hinted at it at the beginning. It's just they came after me in

the same way, the same way, like a secret committee. I believe it had three people on it. Okay.

It was headed by the same woman, Lucy Watson, and they use the same criteria and the mechanisms

that they afforded me to fight it back. were like in secret. So I couldn't do it publicly.

I couldn't rally a legitimate defense without breaking the rules of the party. And so I

said, fuck you. And I aired the letter that they sent me and I was like, I'm done with

this, whatever. And um I was vilified. I was vilified. And rather than, folks like Avi,

rather than coming to my defense, like hardly anybody did, mind you, I didn't want to fight

for my membership, but like there was, it was almost like when JAMA, there was like this

little bit of outrage and then nobody really did anything. Everyone went back. It's like

watching someone go back to your abuser and be like, come on everybody, not this time.

Don't worry, they only did it to one or two or a dozen or a hundred of us, right? And so

ah it's always the dissenters that are isolated and HQ does this, right? And so when people

start repeating HQ's phrasing and you know, like you said, like buying in a little bit

to every little bit of that rejection letter, right? Like finding a little bit of sunlight.

um Well, I can see why they would have to vet him out or I can see why it's necessary. And

I and it's just like it's making a lot of excuses for a lot of badness. And so like that insurgent

campaign that like I we launched ages ago now. and the Waffles, like my dad, you know?

They were just vilified, not just by HQ, but by party regulars, who all of a sudden hated

shit-disturbers. They pretend to be them, but you got Sid Ryan online going like, can you

associate your campaign with NDP haters? He's talking about people who have been

He is talking about people who have been marginalized by that same process, dismissing, dismissing

all those experiences and going, well, I can see some merit in it. uh We should challenge

that at a better time. And there's all of us, like so many of us going like, no, fuck that,

burn it down. Show them for what it's worth. I don't think that was the position of the

campaign. I think there was a mix of people in that campaign that were like, let's go

in. ah If it blows up during this campaign, mean, it's no sweat off my back, but I think

a large part of the Socialist Caucus would feel like I'm misrepresenting them by saying, I

think they think they can still go in, make some reforms, and make it a vehicle for anti-imperialism

and some other more socialist reforms or whatnot. But there's just a lot of us that

are just like... Yeah, that campaign, let it go. Let it piss a whole lot of people off.

But at the very, at the end, will we finally just see what this party is like so you folks

can just stop spending your energy there, stop vilifying people that are pointing out

these discretions? Because like, to be honest, I don't think I'll include this. When you said

I don't always feel the need to critique the broader party, That kind of felt like a dig

at me. And I'm super sensitive. I've got rejection sensitivity. So like, I just want to explain

like why I probably came off as very defensive after that. um Because I was like, yeah, I

take a dig at that party every chance I can get because they've hurt me and my friends

and the movements. And I know you know that. So I'm not talking to you like you don't know

that but you know like that's why I was just like I don't care if you're sick of it Because

sometimes I feel like I'm the only person out there Um and comrades, I know I'm not alone.

I see you I see you but it feels like that where Comrades like my Marxists or other socialists

or NTP longtime friends were just like Turn into whole new people during this leadership

race um or in times of heated partisan needs. And I felt Eve was on the receiving end of

that. And that's when I got involved in the campaign, not his campaign, but just opining

on it. I swore I wouldn't talk about it. Sorry. Not at all. um What I said about not feeling

the need every time I talk about the campaign to criticize the broader party, that was the

sum of what I felt like a lot of people were telling me is that like you're focusing here,

you should be looking over here and focusing. So I didn't want that to be a personal attack

against you. And I'm sorry, I should have been more sensitive in the way that I said that.

So I apologize. Fucking Twitter. Yeah, that's why I'd rather do this. See, because we can

actually just hash things out um and be better understood. But like at the end of it, I am,

I think I am, I think a little bit wary of um we've just got to throw everything we have

at them. And I don't consider myself part of that we. Because I'm not trying to make the

NDP better. That's not my I feel like you're arguing from a devil's advocate position a

lot of the times here, right? You're like, if I were, then this is what I do. Well, it's

like holding people to account is a different thing than trying to improve them and their

institution, right? So I follow the NDP. The NDP wants to have political power and influence

in this party. Sometimes they do and say things that are good. A lot of the time, they don't.

But for me to be like, this is what the internal structure of the party should look like. This

is what vetting should look like. This is how you should or shouldn't have rejected a candidate.

That's too inside of the party for me. I am not willing or interested with my own energy

and time to go there. I think all the time about Sarah Jemma and how the Ontario NDP dismissed

her from their caucus. And I remember very well how many people Immediately were demanding

let her back into the party let her back into the party and I was like, nope I don't think

that that's a good idea because I was watching my friend um Go through hell after being kicked

out and all the people who were just saying let her back in I don't know that they were

considering what that had done to her emotionally and spiritually and How we would expect

people who just treated her like that who just watched? While Merritt-Styles was so racist

and um Islamophobic towards Sarah, saying that Sarah had caused other people's unsafety

by being a black Muslim woman who was talking about Palestine, like what had she done? But

Merritt-Styles felt comfortable going out and saying those things about Sarah. And so I'm

looking at people being like, how could you want her to willingly go back into an environment

where people had just treated her like that? And that is kind of how I feel about all of

this stuff at large. I'm not going to spend my energy telling people you have to exert

this force against the NDP so that they can be this or that. They have shown very clearly

who and what they want to be. That's their choice. I cover them and I move on. Other people are

free to do it their way. I might have thoughts about it from time to time. That's part of

political discourse to me. But it's hard. Keep trying to run up against something that doesn't

want your voice that doesn't want your inclusion Number of people have told me about the star

and their star kicking me out as if it's somehow analogous to the the NDP not letting Eve run

Well, I didn't try to get back into the star when they kicked me out I got the message and

I said it's time for me to go somewhere else and use my precious time and energy to do something

that I personally Is constructive and I only want that for other people I want them to spend

their time and energy doing things that they feel are meaningful and constructive for them.

That's it You won't get any argument from me there. I feel a Level of guilt for dragging

people into the party um And saying come on, let's go like we can we can fix it and I feel

like I'm atoning for it a lot of the time like waving people away with a caution sign. em

engaging in this leadership race was more of a just going, what are y'all doing to one another

down there? Like, I've kind of shelved the fact that you are still engaging with this

institution in this way. I'm trying to be as supportive as possible of comrades using different

tactics. Like that is, I try to really live that. um But I really wish they wouldn't keep

drawing people back in there either. understand that from a person, like why would you go into

an institution that doesn't want you? I get that, I get that. um I don't know why they

keep going. m They do, ah they hope, but I think there's a level of desperation that exists

right now in politics. um And it's why I do this podcast is... because I want people to

know that their political power exists even more so outside of these partisan circles

and that there's so many organizations that could use your time and energy and that will

get more things done in the end. But I do understand this kind of, we have no political home, they're

the only choice. I'm not giving up on the... idea of elections as a means for change. so

people will keep wading into these spaces. So we're going to have to keep talking about

them and covering them. And hopefully we can do that without uh losing comrades. Yeah.

Yeah. I want that too, which is why I'm grateful once again for this discussion. And I feel

like we're going to wrap up, but I want to say something that you said to Eve Engler the very

first time you interviewed him the day of or the day after he announced in July that he

wanted to be uh the leader of the NDP. You talked to him about how there are a lot of people

who really look up to him and you were kind of this wariness that you're talking about

about people going into the party. You expressed that really clearly to Engler and you said,

kind of isn't this going to be an issue for people if it all crashes and burns in the end

and everything doesn't work out like do you worry about people getting really excited about

your campaign and then having this huge letdown when what we all expect is going to happen

actually happens and I really feel you on that Jessa and it's the part of my podcast

with Martin on the breach that we did in October that I feel like many of my critics just were

not interested in the fact that I said this, but I was very much in alignment with you.

I've seen a lot of young people in the last few years who through their campuses, particularly

in McGill or at U of T or at York or different places across the country, through fighting

for Palestine, have gotten politicized for the first time or have gotten to a new level of

their politicization for the first time. And I didn't want people like that to see this

man who puts Palestine at the front and center of his campaign, who speaks out, who goes

up to people who are elected and calls them out on Palestine. I was scared like you, that

people would be like, this is awesome, this is great, without understanding like what the

viability And the seriousness of that campaign was and then themselves also getting really

disillusioned when it didn't work out. So I'm going to take this opportunity at the end here

to say, if there are people listening to this who were really hoping that this campaign of

Eve Engler was going to be included, he was going to be in the debates. He was going to

have a bigger influence formally in what the NDP does. Don't use this as your litmus

test for political involve. This is one entity, a deeply flawed entity. There are so many other

pathways, electorally or not, into getting politically involved. And as disillusioning

as this particular experience might have been, it's not an encapsulation of getting involved

in politics. And you should seek out other ways to continue. I guess Eve Angler's campaign's

not done yet for whatever that's worth. I don't know what it means to continue campaigning

when you've been rejected, but again, that's for him to worry about and his supporters,

not me. I'm just saying this is going to be over at some point and I don't want the sour

taste that could be left in people's mouths to linger so long that they don't stay involved.

People can continue organizing in their local communities. People can join organizations

that are issues based. or that are campaign-based. People can continue to be involved in so many

ways. We do suffer a lot of setbacks on the left when we organize. This may be one of

them for you if you were supporting Eve Engler, but it's not the end of the road. And I hope

people stay engaged as frustrating as they might be with what happened here.

Just not with the NDP. uh

You weren't going to let that one go, were you? I was like, please tell me that's not what

he means. And I went, no, I very much appreciate this conversation, Desmond. um I was anxious

kind of coming into it. I don't normally debate on the show, right? I just kind of act as

a bit of more of an amplification. I'm always convinced that my audience doesn't actually

want to hear from me anyway. They're there. They're eager to hear the opinions of the

great folks we pull in here, you being one of them. So I very much appreciate your time

and uh just how this unfolded. I appreciate it too, Jessa. Thank you for the conversation.

That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank you for joining us. Blueprints

of Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on Twitter

at BP of Disruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo, please

share our content and if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only does our

support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and

let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.